That depends on the contract. And exatly how you breach it. When, as some people have suggested in this thread, you sign a contract with no intention of keeping it, that is, in fact, criminal fraud (at least technically, however difficult to prosecute) in most jurisdictions.

It's not criminal fraud (nor any other kind of fraud) if the contract terms are, themselves, illegal and unenforceable.

The insistence on selling "licenses" but calling them "sales of books" (amazon says "click here to buy this book!" in both print and kindle versions; it doesn't say "click here to buy or license the use of this book!"), and the phrasing that the license doesn't allow handing your kindle to your spouse to read your purchased books--combined with Amazon's casual permission of shared accounts--indicates that the TOU themselves may not be legally enforceable.

Amazon could put a line in its TOU that says "all Kindle owners agree to vote for Democrat party candidates in the next election," but that wouldn't make it fraudulent for Republicans to buy a Kindle, nor to vote as they wish after doing so.

Franšois-AndrÚ Godefroy, a bookseller, wrote to the office in September testifying that "our sales are nearly dead."[113] In November, Franšois Gueffier, one of the wealthiest printers of the Paris Book Guild, decried "the decimation of the industry."

So there is something to what taustin wrote about the French Revolution. However, I'll agree with you to the point of saying that in modern affluent countries, there are a lot of authors who will continue to write despite little chance of being paid. They won't be writing the kind of heavily researched books I tend to like to read, but, if copyright dies, there will be no shortage of new eBooks.

It's not criminal fraud (nor any other kind of fraud) if the contract terms are, themselves, illegal and unenforceable.

Which is not the case here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The insistence on selling "licenses" but calling them "sales of books" (amazon says "click here to buy this book!" in both print and kindle versions; it doesn't say "click here to buy or license the use of this book!"), and the phrasing that the license doesn't allow handing your kindle to your spouse to read your purchased books--combined with Amazon's casual permission of shared accounts--indicates that the TOU themselves may not be legally enforceable.

The key thing, to the degree it's been decided (which isn't much so far) is whether or not you get indefinite use for a single payment. Amazon's terms do include provisions that allow them to remove stuff from the device these days.

You bet your freedom that's unenforceable. I prefer to keep the promises I make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Amazon could put a line in its TOU that says "all Kindle owners agree to vote for Democrat party candidates in the next election," but that wouldn't make it fraudulent for Republicans to buy a Kindle, nor to vote as they wish after doing so.

Which is, frankly, a stupid argument (as stupid as it would be to include such a provision). Copyright licenses do exist, and are enforceable, and are enforced by courts. The only real question is whether or not Amazon's terms constitute a license or a sale of goods. A couple of years ago, I'd have said sale of goods, without question. Now, it's far less clear.

And regardless of how the law turns out, if you make a promise you have no intention of keeping, you're dishonest. That Amazon is greedy and slimy (but operating within the law) doesn't change this.

So there is something to what taustin wrote about the French Revolution. However, I'll agree with you to the point of saying that in modern affluent countries, there are a lot of authors who will continue to write despite little chance of being paid. They won't be writing the kind of heavily researched books I tend to like to read, but, if copyright dies, there will be no shortage of new eBooks.

So there is something to what taustin wrote about the French Revolution. However, I'll agree with you to the point of saying that in modern affluent countries, there are a lot of authors who will continue to write despite little chance of being paid. They won't be writing the kind of heavily researched books I tend to like to read, but, if copyright dies, there will be no shortage of new eBooks.

We are not interested in the vagaries of a book publishing guild, we are interested in collectivist individuals publishing for themselves...

The wealthiest bookseller decrying the lack of a copyright?? Let me know when those who publish books and give them away for free ask you to not copy their material. Then we can begin to discuss the sharing of information.

Your search for excuses to not pay for stuff other people created isn't over yet.

You do not need any excuse for that. What you need is a reason to pay for it since the natural state of information is free. Just pretending like you do that the natural state is paying and not acknowledge that this is historically a minority opinion makes your arguments simplistic and from my viewpoint wrong.

And the reason to pay is of course to stimulate creation. And then the question becomes if paying in the way we do now is the best way to stimulate creation.

So there is something to what taustin wrote about the French Revolution. However, I'll agree with you to the point of saying that in modern affluent countries, there are a lot of authors who will continue to write despite little chance of being paid. They won't be writing the kind of heavily researched books I tend to like to read, but, if copyright dies, there will be no shortage of new eBooks.

That does not seems true to me. Even now heavily researched books like academic books are not selling with a profit but are payed for in other ways like people having academic positions.

And I would also think that people would write books about things they love avd these books would be like heavily researched books.

Or did you mean some other kind of books? Do you have any example of the kind of book that would not be written?

You do not need any excuse for that. What you need is a reason to pay for it since the natural state of information is free. Just pretending like you do that the natural state is paying and not acknowledge that this is historically a minority opinion makes your arguments simplistic and from my viewpoint wrong.

And the reason to pay is of course to stimulate creation. And then the question becomes if paying in the way we do now is the best way to stimulate creation.

I am not sure if we can say that the reason to pay is to stimulate creation. Sure the thought of compensation is probably there, monetary or otherwise, but I have to think that the main impetus for creation is creation itself.

I doubt that our methods of distribution and compensation are the best.

The title of this thread should of course become should we be able to transfer our ebooks to anyone and everyone. I don't think that's advocating piracy, just taking the idea of discounts to its logical conclusion, a price of zero.

I am not sure if we can say that the reason to pay is to stimulate creation. Sure the thought of compensation is probably there, monetary or otherwise, but I have to think that the main impetus for creation is creation itself.

Sure, but the original motivation for paying was to try to stimulate creation.

Sure, but the original motivation for paying was to try to stimulate creation.

Sort of. The original motivation for paying was to encourage distribution of existing works, not necessarily to stimulate more. The motivation for continued copy protections was to stimulate creation.

When they were first set up, those protections went to publishers, on the theory that they were the best agents to stimulate creation. A bit later, in the US, the theory was that the artists and authors themselves should get the protections.

With no copyright, authors would have to decide if they'd be better off financially by distributing widely, and hoping people enjoyed their works enough to pay for them--or locking their works down to restricted viewers, who are only allowed access after signing a complex NDA contract.

Or potentially: release the first half of a novel widely and freely. Charge money, and make people sign a contract, to read the ending.

I never understand the "get rid of copyright!!!!" activists. Copyright law has some serious problems and needs a big overhaul, but it sticks around because it works much better than anything we had before.